All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 12, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:52
January 12, 2009, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Greetings, my good friends.
Great to have you with us.
We're back in action.
El Rushbow behind the golden EIB microphone here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Looking forward to talking to you at some point today.
Lots to do out there.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882.
And the email address, of course, is lrushbow at EIBnet.com.
Dawn, have you heard of the men's cologne by the name of Brute?
I don't know who uses Brute anymore.
High school guys use Brute, B-R-U-T.
They used Brute and they used Jade East.
I recall, I don't even know if you can get Jade East anymore.
Brute was available at the discount counter at the corner drugstore.
They're still around, apparently.
And they went out there and they did a survey.
And it was of Chicago elected officials.
86% of Chicago elected officials, almost all of whom are Democrats, by the way, said that they have enjoyed sex in the shower.
The other 14% said they hadn't been to prison yet, so they couldn't answer.
I'll tell you, it's not looking good for Roland Burris.
We called this on Friday afternoon.
The fast track has slowed down.
Obama changing a tune on practically everything from earmarks to campaign promises to the number of jobs that he's going to create.
Lots of people getting antsy out there.
Gave an interview with George Stephanopoulos this week with George Stephanopoulos yesterday.
We'll have audio soundbites coming up.
How about these poor Somali pirates?
One of the funniest things I have ever seen, they start out, they hijack this $100 million ship, $100 million worth of oil from Saudi Arabia, and they demand a ransom that's not nearly high enough.
I think it was five or seven bucks.
We on this program urged them to up the ransom price to at least 15 million.
They settled on 10, but they had no takers.
The Saudis were saying, hell, we're not going to give you 10 million bucks for that.
So they lowered the ransom to 3 million.
The Saudis said, okay, we'll go for that.
And they airdropped it.
Did you see the picture of this, folks?
They parachuted the cash in to the pirates on their ship.
And then five of the Somali pirates who released the Saudi supertanker drowned with their share of the loot.
Their small boat capsized, said a pirate and relative of one of the dead men on Saturday.
The boat the pirates were traveling in capsized because it was running at high speed because the pirates were afraid of an attack from the warships that were trolling around.
There had been human and monetary laws.
What makes us feel sad, said one pirate, is that we don't still have the dead bodies of our relatives.
Four are still missing.
One washed up on the shore and the ransom is gone.
These five guys went down with the ship, so to speak, $153,000.
Only one of the pirates has been recovered.
His body washed ashore with $153,000 in cash near Mogadishu.
The pirates promised to soon free a Ukrainian arms ship.
What a, what a, what a, it's unfortunate.
What a bad break for the Somali pirate.
That picture, however, of the ransom being dropped by parachute.
You know, if I had been the Saudis, if I'm going to do that, I would have put it in watertight containers and I would have dumped it in the ocean right next to their ship.
And that may have happened.
I'm not really sure.
It might have hit the ship, but to airdrop the ransom.
I know they could have dropped gold bricks.
They could have done any.
Speaking of gold bricks, the Citibank sales share price is plummeting.
It's down, what is it, 12%?
And it's just a little bit over $6 a share now.
If it gets to $5, that's when all the pension funds are required to pull out of there.
When the share is at $5, the price is at $5 a share.
The law says that they have to pull out of there.
That can start a cash run on the place.
And Robert Rubin resigned in disgrace over the weekend from Citibank.
So people are keeping a very sharp eye on this.
Charles Krauthammer with a piece recently saying, hey, all this talk about Obama being able to dump the blame for the economy on Bush, that's going to expire after six months.
After six months minimum, maybe maximum, six months maximum, Obama is going to own the economy because he's going to be the one who's going to be authoring fixes for it.
Now, you know, if, and there's a story, I've got this in the stack today, too.
It's a business week story.
I think it's business week.
That it's entitled, Why the Banks Are Not Lending.
And they're not lending because they still don't have the reserves necessary to back up the loans, doing it the right way.
Gone are the days of 30-to-one leverage where you lent $30 for every dollar you had.
Can't do that anymore.
Not going to do that anymore.
Isn't going to happen.
And so they're hoarding what they've got from the $350 billion they got from the first TARP bailout.
Now Bush and Obama have gotten together, want to release the second $350 billion.
Chris Dodd is out there saying that Bush tricked Congress on this TARP business.
Wait till you hear those audio sounds.
Oh, it's hilarious.
Bush tricked us.
Bush didn't tell us the truth about things.
Bush tricked.
This is an attempt to pass everything off on Bush in terms of the economy.
But these banks are saying we don't have the money to start making major loans right now.
And we're not going to, we're so underfunded, it may take TARP 2 and TARP 3, meaning bailout 2 and bailout 3 before we start lending the money.
And what's laughable, it's nothing about this is funny.
But what's laughable about this, ladies and gentlemen, is that this is exactly what I, on this very program, predicted when the banks got their first down payment of $350 billion.
It wasn't hard to predict because the same thing happened in the European Union.
Banks there had been loaned a lot of money or bailed out a lot of money and they hoarded it in reserves for future use or purchasing assets and other things to try to increase the value of their holdings.
But the last thing they did was put the money into circulation.
But my question is, why do the banks need to loan anybody any money?
The government's the only outfit to bail us out, right?
Obama said that last week in a speech.
The government's the only entity that can solve the economic crisis.
Even President Bush is saying he had to throw his free market principles away to save capitalism.
Now, let's see what that happens.
I mean, that chokes me up to throw out free market principles to save capitalism.
And amazingly, that mantra has been picked up by a number of others around the world.
Obama also said, we're going to have, by the way, we're going to have to have a new definition for the word everybody.
Obama, in his appearance yesterday with George Stephanopoulos, said everybody's going to have to give.
He called for a grand bargain on the economy.
And Stephanopoulos says, eventually sacrifice from everyone.
And Obama said, everybody's going to have to give.
Everybody's going to have to have some skin in the game.
Really?
Who is everybody?
Does this mean that the people that are going to be getting tax-free tax cuts from Obama are going to have to have some skin in the game?
That's going to be a major, if everybody has to have some skin in the game.
Another way of saying that is everybody's going to have to pay some income taxes.
And there are a lot of people right now who aren't.
Does that what he mean?
Is that what he means by everybody?
I have a unique idea.
Ladies and gentlemen, I really want to offer this seriously.
It's part of a morning update today in case you missed it.
I'll go through it again here briefly.
You may remember back, I think it was 1990.
I forget the year, but it was in the early years of the EIB network.
We, on the first day of April of that year, did a morning update and a very lengthy monologue on how it was time to raise taxes on the poor.
That the poor were not paying their fair share, that they had been made victims.
They were getting away totally scot-free.
In fact, yeah, it was during when Clinton was talking about the worst economy of the last 50 years.
Now he had to jumpstart the economy.
And I said that the only group of people that's taking and taking and taking and never giving anything back.
And of course, we kept hearing about the phrase, got to give something back.
That's what makes you a great person.
Well, the poor, I suggested, need to be paying more taxes so they have some skin in the game.
Now, Obama has said the same thing here with Stephanopoulos yesterday without using the word poor.
But let's look at some recent economic data.
Last Friday, new economic data was released on unemployment.
It jumped, as you know, all the way up to 7.2%.
At the same time, retailers reported the worst Christmas sales figures in four decades.
Also on Friday, at yet another press conference, the president-elect told reporters he would do what it takes to kickstart the economy.
He said that ideology will not matter.
He said that pride of authorship won't matter.
Another way of saying, as Reagan did, I don't care who gets the credit as long as we do the right thing.
However, I don't, for one, believe this, ladies and gentlemen, for one simple reason.
At the end of the day, what Obama wants is for the government to get credit for whatever, if anything, works, because that's what he said.
Government's the only entity that can do this.
And at the end of the day, this pride of authorship thing, I think, is BS.
Of course, he wants the government to get the credit, meaning that he will.
He says the old Washington ways will be abandoned.
Political posturing, he said, a thing of the past.
All you have to do, he said, is show him good ideas.
Show him they work, and he will adopt them.
Well, now, to me, taking people at their word, that was an invitation.
Show him good ideas, show him they work, and he'll adopt them.
So, ladies and gentlemen, for the sake of argument, let's take the president-select at his word.
In addition to the retail figures over Christmas being lousy, we also had new retail figures showing that high-end retailers got clobbered this season.
Saks Fifth Avenue, a 20% drop in same-store sales.
It's so bad at Saks 5th Avenue, they're thinking of relocating either to Lexington Avenue or maybe all the way over to York Avenue.
Saks York Avenue is what they might have to do.
William Sonoma, a 24% drop in sales because the rich, the high-end, are not going in there and buying things.
According to press reports, the affluent have been spooked by the financial meltdown.
And then there's this, and this is because my memory is unparalleled.
I recall this.
Right before Christmas, the AP ran a story bemoaning the plight of the wealthy.
who were out bargain hunting.
We told you about this at the time.
They were out bargain hunting.
They were looking for discounts.
And the AP said this has crippled the economy.
Now, remember, Obama said, show me what works and we'll do it.
Well, the AP, AP's own, or Obama's own news service, AP Obama, when the rich stop spending, all hell breaks loose.
When the rich start looking for bargains, Saks Fifth Avenue has to move over to Lexington Avenue.
When Macy's is shutting down all over the place, when Bergdorf Goodman has to put things on sale, you're in big trouble.
Tiffany Groff, alley jewelry, if those things have to start discounting and people who normally spend their money there start looking for discounts, we're in trouble.
And the AP said this, bemoaning the plight of retailers.
And then, beyond even that, ladies and gentlemen, AP ran a story last week bemoaning the fact, retailers are bemoaning the fact that nobody might be willing to pay full price for items again.
Let's say that you went into some place and an item you wanted cost $200, but because of the downturn, they're offering it now for $35 or $40, $50 just to move it out.
Retailers are worried that once the economy comes back and that item goes back to $200, that the average retailers say, why should I pay $200 when you sold it to me for $35?
So they're worried, folks.
Retailers are worried nobody's buying anything except the rich, and the rich are looking for discounts.
And this is hurting high-end retailers.
And this is causing, and the Madoff scandal.
Madoff, you wouldn't believe how many household staff people around the country have been laid off.
Well, it's serious.
You don't know how many waiters and waitresses at country clubs have been laid off.
He had four boats.
They all had staff.
They're historia.
I mean, this is serious stuff out there.
So, clearly, something needs to happen in order to restore confidence here, to create economic growth, which will filter through to all levels of the economy.
And it seems to me, folks, that the simplest, the fastest, and the most direct way to do this is to bail out the rich.
AP went on and on about how that's the top of the ladder here that it's not trickling down, and it's causing a problem everywhere.
When the rich start seeking discounts and they're not shopping as much, that's high-end items not being sold at full price, that's a problem.
So if we are going to save our economy, the bailout of the wealthy cannot wait.
The rich need a bailout.
The rich need further tax cuts.
This is what is necessary.
I would be willing to personally present this plan to President-elect Obama because it has worked.
I am confident.
And you know, what we're seeing here is a great little setup.
We're having a setup of FDR versus Reagan in our lifetimes.
Well, I might be open to direct handouts to the rich.
I think tax cuts would be the fastest way to do this, but they might hoard them.
But they might hoard the money anyway to make up for what they've lost.
You know, many of the rich people have made it an art spending somebody else's money to get what they want, i.e., Lucan Madoff.
However, ladies and gentlemen, I would be willing to present this plan personally to the president-elect because it works.
And I've got Ronaldus Magnus taking over for Jimmy Carter, which is where Obama might end up in four years, with all this massive unemployment, high interest rates, thermostats turned down to 67 degrees in the wintertime, 78 degrees in the summertime.
Reagan came in, cut taxes across the board for everybody, spurred economic growth.
Unemployment went down.
Interest rates went down.
The experts said it couldn't happen, but it did.
We can compare that to what he's doing, which is FDR gnomics.
FDR Nomics suspend, or prolonged, I should say, the Great Depression for seven years.
Herbert Hoover, who was in charge of it for one, got all the blame.
But we could do it.
We could have a side-by-side comparison here of how ready to jumpstart the economy.
We know that Obama's way hasn't worked before.
We know that Reagan's way has.
And I'm just offering a personal trip.
Nobody even has to know about this.
I would fly anywhere under the cover of darkness.
I would slink in in an old rented car that nobody would think was carrying anybody special.
We could do it in Blagojevich's office.
We could do it in Roland Burris's office, wherever we could.
No, I'm not going to take an airdrop.
I'd do it on the phone.
I'd do it on the phone.
He's open to good ideas, bail out the rich, cut their taxes, get the economy going.
Included in the rich would be small and large businesses as well in the tax cut.
Back after this, we'll have the audio soundbites of Obama with George Stephanopoulos in mere moments.
Charles Krauthammer believes that Barack Obama will own the bad economy within six months, at which point he will not be able to defect blame to George W. Bush.
By mid-year, it becomes his.
I mean, everything is blamed on the predecessor at the beginning, as it should be.
And this always happens.
By summer, it'll be his recession.
And of course, even by his own estimates, it will be getting worse.
Popular opinion is not going to react to the programs he passes.
They're going to react to economic numbers and reality.
They're going to get worse.
So inevitably, he'll be the president.
In about six months or so, it'll be his economy.
And with unemployment high, it will be his responsibility.
Now, we spoke about this.
Mr. Snerdley and I spoke about this last week.
There's an ingredient here that's being left out, and that's the role of the drive-by media in this.
Snerdley got sucked in.
Snerdley believes that the American people will react as Krauthammer writes that they will, that they're going to react to economic numbers and reality.
They're not going to react to the programs he passes and to the speeches he makes.
But then, as I just said, Herbert Hoover was in charge in power during the Great Depression for one year, FDR for seven or eight years.
And who gets the credit for fixing it all this time since?
And who gets the blame?
Herbert Hoover.
One year.
It was Roosevelt whose policies and plans sustained and prolonged the Great Depression.
You're going to have a drive-by media here that will look at Obama as a too big to fail.
And they're going to be propping him up.
And just as exactly the opposite of what they did in the last six years when there was no recession, trying to convince everybody that there was.
And after a while, they were able to reach enough people to depress a lot of people, the country, the national mood.
They're going to try just the opposite with Obama.
They're going to focus on what he's proposing and what he does, whether it has any impact or not, because he's too big to fail.
It's going to be fascinating to watch if people will ignore their real life circumstances.
And we're back, Rush Limbaugh, and the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Now, get this.
You just heard my proposal for Obama.
Bail out the rich, cut taxes.
I might even be persuaded for a direct cash infusion to the rich, but it would take a lot of money.
I mean, you could, you know, give the give you $750,000 a million dollars each to get them back into action out there, folks.
But either thing, either way will work.
There's no question about it, which is what Obama says he wants.
Now, the Politico has a story today, stimulus not just for burly men.
Now, what's interesting about the, well, it'll speaks for itself.
Christina Romer, the chair of the Council of Economic Advisors for Obama, says in a new video that investments in education and healthcare, along with direct state aid and tax cuts, will help speed the benefits and spread the benefits of the stimulus beyond merely road and bridge projects.
Now, what's happening out there?
Some of the loony-tuned left is starting to get nervous about these proposals, and they are apparently harassing the Obama office with all kinds of criticism and questions, such as, why?
What do you mean, tax cuts?
You didn't talk about tax cuts.
You talked about tax cuts for the middle class.
Now you're talking about tax cuts for business.
What are you talking about?
Tax cuts.
He's got some people to be very mad about there.
Now, listen to what Christina Romer said.
Well, sometimes it's not so clear why do you have a tax cut in there?
Is that really going to create any jobs?
In the video, Christina Romer then says, absolutely, we think when you cut people's taxes, they spend more.
And when people spend more, that means people have to produce the goods that they're buying.
So those kinds of things do have jobs effects as well.
How did this get out?
This is economics 101.
This is not a mystery.
It's not even arguable.
And let Christina Romer, or yet she has to include this in a video to Obama supporters who are waffling here on his economic plan and talk to them as though they're not even first graders yet.
And even to her, when she says it, it sounds like it's news.
That tax cuts, I'll tell you, the divide and the disconnect is just profound.
Obama's whole team, we're going to rebound this economy with roads and bridges.
We're going to rebound this economy with government spending.
And here his own economic advisor admits, begrudgingly and somewhat shocked herself, yeah, tax cuts do put more money in people's pockets.
They go out and spend things and it means people have to produce things.
And yeah, that can lead to new jobs.
Shazam.
Let's go to the audio sound bites.
By the way, is this true?
I just read that Madoff has been given a house.
They wanted to put him in jail after the shenanigans last week.
Yeah, he's to remain under house arrest.
Bernie Madoff remains under house arrest, will not have to go to the big house.
Here's Obama.
Let's go to this week with Stephanopoulos, whose question was, which of your ambitions, which of your campaign promises will you have to scale back on because of the economic downturn?
I want to be realistic here.
Not everything that we talked about during the campaign are we going to be able to do on the pace that we had hoped.
Really?
Not everything we'd promised, not everything we talked about were going to be able to do.
But remember, my friends, it's not what Obama says.
It's how he says it.
Even he admits now his campaign promises were just a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
And see, it goes to something that I shared with you last week.
Elections is not about winning arguments.
It's not about telling the right thing to be.
It's about telling them what they want to hear.
And then after you get into office, I mean, this is just Bill Clinton all over again.
And I tell you, I got in here, the Bush people didn't tell me how bad this was.
I have never worked harder in my entire life, and I just can't find a way.
I can't find a way to come through those middle-class tax cuts.
And he never found a way for him.
So we've got, I mean, it's a rerun.
It's a replay.
I want to be realistic here.
So Stephanopoulos then presses Lamuthia on everybody having to sacrifice, have some skin in the game.
He said, well, now, at the end of the day, you're talking about over the course of your presidency some kind of grand bargain?
You have tax reform, healthcare reform, entitlement reform, Social Security, Medicare, where everybody in the country is going to have to sacrifice something except change for the greater good.
Yes.
And when will that get done?
Well, right now I'm focused on a pretty heavy lift, which is making sure that we get that reinvestment and recovery package in place.
But what you described is exactly what we're going to have to do.
What we have to do is to take a look at our structural deficit.
How are we paying for government?
What are we getting for it?
Really?
And how do we make the system more efficient?
We should eventually sacrifice from everyone.
Everybody's going to have to give.
Everybody's going to have to have some skin in the game.
Who is everybody?
We're going to have to define this word, ladies and gentlemen.
Who is everybody?
Because I don't think he means everybody.
But did you notice how Stephanopoulos gave him the answer to the question?
He's speaking here in the continual flowery platitudes.
He didn't get specific, but I'm sure Stephanopoulos walked out of the studio yesterday.
He said, well, I made some news.
I told Obama what's going to happen.
He said, yep, it's exactly what you said we're going to do.
So, I mean, Stephanopoulos may as well have been David Axelrod conducting this interview.
Here's the next question.
And this, for you anti-war people, it's a bad soundbite.
This is Stephanopoulos.
Look, you also agreed on Guantanamo when you say you want to shut it down.
You say you're still going to shut it down.
Is it turning out to be harder than you expect?
What kind of questions are these?
Of course, it's turning out to be harder than expected because Obama's already said so.
This is a softball served up.
Will you close Club Gitmo in the first 100 days?
It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize.
We are going to get it done.
But part of the challenge that you have is that you've got a bunch of folks who've been detained, many of whom may be very dangerous.
No.
Who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication.
Whoa.
And some of the evidence against them may be tainted, even though it's true.
So not necessarily for that.
That is a challenge.
I think it's going to take some time.
You can forget Gitmo closing exactly as I told you.
You can forget the warrantless wiretaps going away.
You can forget all of this stuff necessary to protect America being scratched because governing is different than running.
Whole different set of responsibilities.
I know because I know liberals, thirdly.
I just know these people, as you well know.
But this is, I mean, when's the last time, when is any time during the campaign that he acknowledged that anybody in prison at Gitmo was really dangerous?
He never did.
They were all victims of U.S. civil rights abuses.
None of them deserved to be there.
They didn't have habeas corpus.
They hadn't been charged with anything.
Now Obama, on the verge of being immaculately inaugurated, says that, well, you know, the evidence against them may be tainted, even though it's true.
He is finding out just how right Bush and Cheney were to set all this up.
So, yeah, we're going to get it done.
Well, not in the first hundred days.
We're going to get it done.
He's playing.
He plays this both sides of the game really brilliantly, I think.
There's a, you know, his left-wing kook fringe base is also clamoring for war crimes charges and trials against Bush administration people.
Now, that will never happen.
But I think Obama's out there saying, well, you know, before you can do that, you have to have investigations.
And I don't think we're going to have time.
So he's saying, yeah, if there's evidence that needs to be investigated, we're going to investigate it.
So he's assuring that there might be investigations, but that there won't be any charges.
Of course, he's not going to engage in charging Bush or Cheney with war crime torture.
The biggest people he's got to run roughshot on in that regard are people like John Conyers and some of the other looney birds in the House of Representatives.
Now, Stephanopoulos said, former Defense Secretary William Perry said this week at a conference that you will almost certain face, almost certainly face a conflict, a crisis with Iran in your first year in office.
Based on what you've learned, do you agree with that analysis?
And are you ready for it?
I've outlined my belief that engagement is the place to start.
And I think that's sending a signal that we respect the aspirations of the Iranian people, but that we also have certain expectations in terms of how a international actor behaves is more than we can.
I think that's a new emphasis on respect.
Well, I think a new emphasis on respect and a new emphasis on being willing to talk, but also clarity about what our bottom lines are.
All right.
More goblet-y-gook.
These questions are derived from Obama's campaign statements.
And what Obama's basically saying here is, well, yeah, we're going to respect him.
We're going to talk to him.
But we really respect the aspirations of the Iranian people.
Mr. President-elect, that's been the whole focus point, focal point of the Bush administration's Iran policy has been to make sure the Iranian people understood.
We got no grudge against them.
You're not breaking any new ground here.
But I hate to tell him we had the news last Friday.
The mullahs have said we're not talking until two things happen.
They have set preconditions with the one.
And the two preconditions are get out of Iraq and stop supporting Israel.
The mullahs said we're not going to talk to the new president until those two things happen.
And meanwhile, he's sitting here talking, well, we're going to treat him with respect, newfound respect.
See, everything with Stephanopoulos and the media, everything is based on the fact that all these people hate us only because George Bush was president.
And that once Bush is gone, all this hatred and animosity is going to vanish, which it won't.
Just the disconnect here between reality and symbolism continues to just amaze me, to be profound.
Back after this.
Unbelievable here, ladies and gentlemen.
Unbelievable.
What do you think the latest cancer-causing agent is in the United States?
Well, actually, not just the United States, but hang on, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm being interrupted.
Happy birthday.
Staff is violating a 20-year-old rule.
Happy birthday to you.
Happy birthday to me.
Happy birthday to you.
You know, I'm softening on this stuff.
Normally, I would have shut the microphone off and I've been cursing.
That's the stupid question.
What is that?
That's the signal.
There's a what?
A singing candle.
Oh, it's a singing candle.
Okay.
It's doing the happy birthday among me.
It's been a horrible high pitch.
You see, is it going to keep doing that until I blow it out?
Okay.
Supposed to make a wish.
This did by two.
What kind of cake is it?
It's white trash cake.
White trash cake.
Cool.
We love white trash cakes here.
Don't misunderstand.
Thank you all.
I had so many people call today or email and wish me the 60th happy birthday.
It's 58.
1951.
This is 2006.
58.
At any rate, ladies and gentlemen, what do you think is the latest cause of cancer?
In fact, let me get specific.
The greatest cause of oral cancer and should be pulled off the supermarkets now.
No, but there's white trash cake all over my show prep stuff now.
How the hell?
No, it's not white trash cake.
Mouthwash.
Honest, it's what it says here.
This is from the UK Daily Mail.
There is now sufficient evidence mouthwashes containing alcohol contribute to the increased risk of the disease, according to a review of the latest studies.
Now, this has to be absurd.
What about the alcohol in alcohol?
If the alcohol in mouthwash causes oral cancer, how come the alcohol and alcohol doesn't?
How come they haven't warned us about that?
And when I first asked this question, somebody said, well, how many times a day do you gargle with alcohol alcohol?
And I said, I don't know.
Maybe you should ask Maureen Dowd.
This is the latest scare tactic.
Mouthwash.
And they've got some poor dope that looks like Ryan Seacrest here, drinking a bunch of it, blue-colored and so forth.
Don't want to mention any brand names.
They don't mention any brand names here.
All these scares, they just never cease.
All right.
It's not pretty out there on Friday, and I had a sneaking suspicion of this.
The seating in the United States Senate of Roland Burris from Illinois, the Senate doesn't want any part of him.
And Dick Durbin says that the Burris decision is likely before the end of the month.
He was on Slay the Nation yesterday.
Bob Schieffer said, does it at this point have the political will do that, meaning the Senate to seat Burris?
You think somebody appointed by Blago should be seated in the U.S. Senate?
If he has the proper certification and papers, then we're going to take one look at the process and move forward from there.
But I won't presume what the Senate is going to finally decide.
I will just tell you we'll do it fairly and we'll do it on a timely basis.
But you're saying at this point you don't know if he has the proper papers and certification.
I can tell you the papers he submitted are different than those that have been submitted by virtually every senator appointed and elected in more than a century.
But the Illinois Supreme Court said he doesn't need certification papers.
And specifically, he doesn't need the signature of the Illinois Secretary of State who says he's not going to sign it anyway.
But the Illinois Supreme Court said no.
So now we're back to.
We hope to have this resolved by the end of the month.
Say, folks, a quick question here: Who, before we go to our top-of-the-hour obscene profit break, who invented the internet?
Al Gore, right?
Al Gore was credited with inventing the internet.
Did you know that using the internet contributes to global warming?
Yes, it does.
▲
Export Selection